watched Dan Abrams on the Geraldine Ferraro issue. It's interesting to me how this thing has gotten twisted. MSNBC has assumed the role of The Office of Censorship toward the Clinton campaign. Abrams keeps asking the black guest if he doesn't think Ferraro should be fired. Because Ferraro said something Abrams doesn't like, she should be fired.

Ferraro didn't say Obama is a loser or has no potential or isn't a promising politician. She said he wouldn't a presidential candidate at age 45 with only 3 years in the Senate if he weren't AA. I believe it's a valid statement that can at least be debated.

What worries me is: if Obama does become president are we going to have this constant censorship and lack of objectivity like we had the last 8 years with Bush? And it seems to me that if Obama is as phenomenal as he and his media claim, why can he not be magnanimous as the front-runner and let valid statements that merely express a personal opinion roll off? Clinton has been expected to let the kitchen sink roll off.

Why are the media and the Dem leadership so hyper about race, but totally unconcerned with sexism?

I am sick and tired of MSNBC. Last night Clinton was likened to Jason and Freddie Kruger.. she just won't die. Hardy har har She's an adrenaline junkie, she likes to take it to the edge and come back, it's like autoerotic asphyxiation. The 9/11 commercial is now a 911 commercial. Here's the analysis from MSNBC.. if it is a mother with children in bed while someone is outside lurking in the bushes, it is racist because we know the stereotype of who would be lurking in the bushes. Fact.. it is not national security, it is a 911 commercial.

So, last night she was Freddie Kruger, in to autoerotic asphyxiation and racist. I'm sure tonight will just be @$#@ing great.

is a big fan of that "they like to almost fail for the adrenaline rush when they come back." I think it says more about him than it does her. Hard to see how she can be both a "cold calculating b*tch" and a reckless adrenaline junkie.

You are right about the media, they have harped on about race, often crying wolf when it was a sheep. I do not think that is the case here. I do not think Ferraro hates black people or is herself even prejudiced. But she made a statement that belittles Obama and his intelligence/ personal skill and gives people a reason to diminish his campaign BECAUSE OF his race. That is what is unacceptable. Also, I don't buy the experience argument. John Edwards is no Chris Dodd and if weren't for Obama he would probably be battling it out with Hillary right now.

Ferraro's remark's a very similar to those that people (including many of those now defending her) rightfully denounced Chris Matthews for (his "Hillary is a Senator because Bill fooled around" spiel), why should there be a double standard?

history of referring to Hillary Clinton in derogatory and sometimes sexist terms. Phrases that had nothing to do with the conduct in question.

That's what got him into trouble. Not just one remark, but many remarks. He earned that smackdown. Some people tried to defend him, but my opinion is that anyone who makes their living on nationally broadcast media should always choose their words carefully. It's their job/paycheck on the line every time they open their mouth.

Dear Hillary -
I am stepping down from your finance committee so I can speak for myself and you can continue to speak for yourself about what is at stake in this campaign.

The Obama campaign is attacking me to hurt you.

I won't let that happen.

Thank you for everything you have done and continue to do to make this a better world for my children and grandchildren.

You have my deep admiration and respect.

Gerry

Regardless of her official position (or lack thereof) she did Hillary no favors. Hillary did herself no favors by not at least asking for this letter ASAP. Particularly after the Samantha Powers comments.

I don't need help. I don't view what she said as racist. I also don't believe she is racist.

I understand you feel its racist. Its your prerogative (obviously). Its interesting part of what she is saying is that if you talk about race you are labeled as racist, regardless of what you say.

When did we get to the point where we can't even talk about issues anymore without being labeled? I posted elsewhere and I'll repeat: we seem to live in a soundbite reality now, what someone says is what we label it to be. No nuance, no complexity allowed.

racist. I am white, I have AA friends we discuss race openly without a problem.

If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept," she said.

1st off, Obama is where he is because he has run a superior campaign and he clearly is charismatic. Other politicians of similar age and charisma with superior campaigns: JFK, RFK, Bill Clinton, Woodrow Wilson (a politician for only 2 years before obtaining the nomination of his party). FDR governor for 2 years and a former state senator.

As you are well aware, being black in America, even today, is not generally considered having it easy. Ever seen DWB?

Here is what a black male friend wrote:

... we are tired of those kind of
statements; We get the job because we're black. Not
because we have done almost everything under the sun
and have the credentials.

Access Denied: We usually don't get an interview
unless someone says something----don't get in the
door--unless someone says something---then when we do
get a position--you get erased or your experience and
background minimzed--always pointed out what you don't
know or have not done--therefore you can't.

Hopefully this provides you a fresh perspective on what Ferraro said. Put on my friend's shoes. Walk a mile in them.

Arguing what Ferraro said wasn't racist is a non starter. She hurt Hillary and has no-one to blame but herself.

I have a little problem with the didactic "its a non starter." I acknowledge that is how you feel. I don't agree. She didn't say he didn't deserve to be where he was, she said it helped him.

It was interesting, a friend of mine, who is a very strong Obama supporter, was talking to me about her comment. He wasn't outraged, he was trying to sort out what he thought of it. I asked him "so would you have supported Sen Obama if he was a white man from the South?" He paused for a sec, and said "no, I wouldn't have."

My point: there is truth in what she says. If her intent is not racist if the statement does not diminish Sen Obama (she herself said he has run a great campaign), why can't she say something that is true?

I repeat: when did we stop being able to talk and understand subtly and complexity. Do you honestly think what she said and what she meant is the same as what some racist idiot would spew? Because you are both diminishing the ugliness and damage of true racism when you equate the two and you do disservice to someone who has probably spent a lot of her life fighting against what she is being accused of.

because he is black? I diminish no-one nor the meaning of racism. I grew up and went to school in the South. I know racism when I hear it. I know the subtle racism in casual "insensitive remarks" made by otherwise decent people. Its still racism.

Ferraro didn't just fall off the turnip truck. She is experienced and a wise woman. She should know better. She made a racist comment. That doesn't mean she is a racist. I wouldn't call her that without a lot more evidence.

but for his being black, he wouldn't be here- i.e. he is a quota, a token, not serious.

Later she tries to get out of the hole by praising his campaign and his accomplishments.

The problem: If he is accomplished and has run a great campaign, then obviously he would (and should) be here. So the first statement makes no sense in light of the 2nd- or the 2nd makes no sense in light of the first. Take your pick. They are mutually exclusive, they cannot both be correct.

The original comment focuses in on his race and on its face denigrates his accomplishments. But you claim it is not a racist statement. Ok then, what is it?

Let's say there are ten very talented actors. All equally capable, all very accomplished, etc.

Now one of the actors happens to be 6 foot tall, while the rest are 5'8''. They go to audition, everything goes well for all. And somehow the 6' actor gets the part.

Does this mean the other actors were bad actors? Does it make it less valid that the 6' actor got the part? Does it change their acting ability.

But if I now say "you know the 6' actor got the part because he was taller" am I a height-ist?

So yes, both parts can be correct. He can be talented and capable politician, and the fact that he happens to be black could also have helped him. One doesn't take away from the other. And I don't see how its racist to point this out. However if you took away from his accomplishment (for example that 6' actor sucked and only got there because he is tall) then I'd agree with you.

would not accept your analogy. I don't think any of my AA friends would accept it, though I admit not to have taken a poll, and concede a poll of my AA friends is not definitive.

We aren't talking about height. There is not a history of discrimination against height (except in my family where we are all short). We are talking about race and race relations in this country. By definition we are talking about a long history. The 3/5th compromise. The disputed election of 1800 (wherein Jefferson was called the "black president" because southern states had more electors due to the 3/5th compromise), The compromise of 1820, the Kansas Nebraska Act, the Civil War, reconstruction and the Jim Crow era (which lasted till 1964); the civil rights movement, and the great white backlash, the GOP Goldwater/Nixon/Reagan Southern Strategy.

This is the context that we are forced to view Ferraro's statements (this is not a choice we make, this is history).

Ferraro's contention was that Obama is where he is due to an affirmative action being a quota or that he is a token. She made a racially insensitive remark - in plain terms, a racist statement, with no real malice intended. She is not a classic "Archie Bunker" bigot. She is not a member of the klan and I certainly don't accuse of her being a bigot in general.

That doesn't change that what she said was racist.

Once she made the statement, she could have walked it back and preserved her dignity. It would have required her to admit to herself the insensitivity of the remark and that it was racist. She, like others, assumed to admit that, is to admit she was a classic "Archie Bunker" bigot. That is not the case. We all carry the baggage of our history and upbringing.

I asked my male AA friend referred to earlier, "speaking as a black man", did he feel what Bill Clinton said was racist? He responded by laughing and saying he would answer the question, but to remember, he can't speak for all black males. Was my remark racist? Borderline. It included an implicit assumption based upon race, which my friend gently pointed out. I too bring our national baggage to the conversation.

(OT: the answer re: Bill was no).

Finally, Hillary has apologized in recognition of that Ferraro's remark was out of bounds.

Hillary did the right thing. I am proud of her. That is the Hillary Clinton I admire.

That all this is not painfully obvious. Must be the mix of cultism, and a rigid denial that good people do express society's racist and sexist bias on occasion. Denial, unfortunately, perpetuates racism and sexism and that is the worst part of the Ferraro incident.

If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept," she said.

I said:

Her statement in essence was
but for his being black, he wouldn't be here- i.e. he is a quota, a token, not serious.

Given the context as I previously laid out for you, its hard to make the case I am putting words into her mouth.

If he were white, he wouldn't be in this position- Oh really. What is that supposed to mean? He is not accomplished, he has not run a successful campaign?

if he was a woman he would not be in this position.- Oh really. What is that supposed to mean? He is not accomplished, he has not run a successful campaign?

Here you might get somewhere if the inference is no matter how accomplished you are, how successful a campaign you have run, for a woman it is not enough. Ferraro may be making an inarticulate gender bias argument- the problem is, a successful woman, who has run by all accounts a successful campaign is in this position- Hillary.

As you and others have pointed out, Ferraro tried to back track by saying, but Obama is accomplished, he has run a good campaign, he is charismatic. If all of that is true, then shouldn't he be in this position? Given that premise, how do you square this statement with the 1st. I submit you can't. They are mutually exclusive. Either he is all of these things and should be in the position he is in regardless of race, or he isn't and is only there because of his race.

Only one of these statements can be true. They cannot both be true.

The 1st statement clearly focuses on race and denigrates his accomplishments. You cannot with a straight face deny it is racist. Open your eyes and look. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

I grew up in the civil rights era (at the end of it). I attended the first integrated schools in in the first integrated classes in Mississippi. I have heard both overt and mere insensitive racist remarks most of my life. Its better today than 15 years ago, than 20 years ago, etc. But I know what I am talking about and I am right. Whether you concede that fact or not.

But she also echoed remarks of feminist leaders like Gloria Steinem, who argued in the New York Times that Obama would not have succeeded if he were a woman because gender is "the most restricting force in American life."

"Sexism is a bigger problem," Ferraro argued. "It's OK to be sexist in some people's minds. It's not OK to be racist."

She's upset because while the media and everybody else has to walk on eggshells around Obama for fear of being seen as racist (thanks largely to the way he's run his campaign), nobody has to worry about seeming sexist.

that you have just slammed the Obama campaign with that comment? In essence you are saying that the Obama campaign had no qualms about Powers saying Clinton was a monster, until Clinton complained about it. You make them sound unprincipled and weak-kneed at the same time. With supporters like you...

I don't remember anything like that happening - and how can Obama's campaign say he doesn't speak for them when he's the campaign co-chair? He is the campaign, and he spoke as its representive. If he wasn't speaking for the campaign he should have been fired.

Ferraro was on the finance committee, but I doubt anybody on that side would say she spoke for them.

That's how these things work. Maybe he should have been fired, but like I said, Clinton had her own aide saying something "codified" so maybe they agreed to let it ride on both sides. I never heard anything about either one until people here started talking about all the back and forth.

we are. All the more reason it was unnecessary and foolish of Ferraro to say that. After all, what's the benefit of stating the obvious, if only in the metaphysical sense you put it in?

As someone who is totally un-pc, I agree with you. I mean, I don't support those kinda comments, but to take something said to a small town paper in a state no longer competing, by a B-list political celebrity at best (just being honest) is when we have just become way to sensitive and gotcha oriented.

That said, it is still not very smart to say something like that. It just makes you look racist, even though everybody under the sun agrees she is not a racist woman. Then claiming reverse racism was just the death knell. When you start sounding like a dittohead, you're done for.

you look racist to say something like that..it just makes you look foolish. Same with the flap over the "pimpin'" thing on MSNBC, that wasn't sexist, just a foolish comment since all the candidates pimp their loved ones on the campaign trail.

The "mommy party" has penis envy -- they are hoping to get the male voters the male voters they've been hankering after, but who long ago started voting with the Republicans, this time around by showing they're willing to beat up on women, abandon "women's" issues and basically and throw women -- especially those old, uppity ones with "expectations" off, and under, the bus.

This gotcha gamesmanship has got to stop. And the youthful "progressive" blogosphere and the media have got to wake up to the harm they are doing.

For instance, what was "racist" and outrageous about Kroft's interview with Clinton in which he BADGERED her, over and over again, about another candidate's religion and made that candidate's religion the major point of the interview? IT WAS KROFT'S BEHAVIOR, NOT HILLARY. Every time progressives allow and support the media in doing this sort of thing to Democrats THEY weaken the party.

Why aren't Olberman and Kroft covering the obscene incarceration rates of young black men? Or, the plight young working class men and women trying to put together a secure family life in an economy where nothing is certain except the fact that the average per capita wage is insufficient to raise a family?

This campaign has been a revelation about the "progressive" community. A very disheartening and disillusioning one -- and that is what is going to inevitably tear the party apart.

3. What has been the liberal, and the Democratic Party's, message to women for the last 30-40 years?

"Stick with us (open your wallets and make sure you vote) because our presidential candidates have attractive, "liberated" wives, and, most important, we're the party that will make sure you can abort your babies."

Beyond that, every Democratic appeal to women -- on the issues that could help make a different "choice" possible for many -- universal, affordable health care, access to child care and early childhood education, family leave, pay equity, more flexible approaches to work and retirement, etc. -- has been made with a wink, a nod and fingers crossed behind their backs.

What we've learned in this campaign is that for affluent liberals, male and female, for whom abortion is a "personal choice" rather than an economic issue, it is the only "feminist" or "woman's" issue they're willing to stand up for. And we've learned that the party's elite leadership and the "progressive" punditocracy that supports it, for the mostly have extreme contempt for all those "older women" who have expected more from the party, and from the many progressive institutions, organizations and media outlets they've supported with their time, energy, money and patronage. Worse, we've learned that the party's leadership and those elites have nothing but disdain for all those younger, poorer women, and their families, whose votes they need and seek -- voters who they refer to dismissively as "women with needs."

It doesn't matter who ends up with the nomination. This campaign may be putting an end to any distinctive rationale for the Democratic Party. It has exposed the Party's gender and class hypocrisy and fault lines, and made apparent the extreme diversion of interests between the male and elite female party leadership and the middle and working class women whose votes have kept the party viable over the last 30 years.

I don't know how this will play out in the near future. But I know that in the long run "shut up and vote" will not prove to be a good enough approach to half the voting population.

Exactly the right choice of words. As I was commenting yesterday, the Obama campaign has cultivated this narrative that "There is a disturbing pattern of racist attacks in the Clinton campaign", and "Clinton uses dirty tactics", etc.

Then, when someone uses some inartful language, or just plain screws up, it is used as proof of the racism or dirty tactics. GOTCHA.

Keith Olbermann announced last night (while I was enjoying an edifying installment of American Idol with my 14 year old curled up next to me) that he will be making a Special Comment tonight about the Ferraro statements and the Clinton campaign's (apparently unacceptable) response to them. This, the diary states breathlessly, will be the first of Olbermann's patented exhortations to focus directly on a Democrat, rather than a member of the Bush Crime Family. Apparently, this is sending the old tinglies up the legs of the entire (remaining) DK community.

I agree that Ferraro's remarks were wrong, but I also don't like the idea of saying that being a person of color is "unlucky," as I am one myself. I am not unlucky to be Puerto Rican, any more than I am unlucky to be a woman, even though each of those things sometimes creates obstacles in my life. I am perfectly content with who and what I am, as I would expect Obama to be. If someone asked me if I was "lucky" to be a Latina, I would say yes. Because why would I want to be anyone else.

Still, being an African American running a national race cannot be characterized as an advantage, at least not initially. It is to Obama's credit that somehow he has made it so (at least for the time being -- the Rethugs will do their best to take it away). Ferraro compounded her initial mistake by digging her heels in, claiming reverse racism rather than "clarifying" the more inflammatory aspects of her remarks, as Michelle Obama did a few weeks ago. The old political instincts failed Gerry in this instance.

But for Obama, let alone KO, to say that Clinton should "fire" her? Ferraro is not a paid senior advisor to Clinton's campaign, as Samantha Power was to Obama's. She makes speeches and raises money. More than that, she is a Democratic icon, and one who has been seriously ill in the last few years. Is Clinton really supposed to humiliate her in that way?

Anyway, KO, my ex-hero? Dead to me now. Watching the caterwauling and sniping at American Idol is infinitely more rewarding so long as I get to spend it with my 14 year old curled up next to me like the sweet little kitten she still is (most of the time).

support Hillary more. That an entire "news" channel is now another branch of the dreaded Fux and is only serving to make me fight more for what MY values are; tells me they will lose in this endeavor. BO used to seem like a nice person - I worried there was no vetting, now I know why. I am a natural born Democrat - for the good of all is my motto, will give anyone the shirt off my back if they need it.

KO is doubly dead to me - a wolf in sheeps clothing. I do not watch CNN, MSNBC - never watched Fox except for five minutes back in 2000 - funny, I thought they were an aberration then - now they are the norm?

Dead to me also. And to yesterday's celebration by KO et al. of the ridiculous piece in the NY Times claiming a racial subtext to the red phone ad. A DK poster now calling Clinton the George Wallace of 2008.

While women can be mocked, ridiculed and stomped on with glee. Have a great time tonigth, Keith. Knock yourself out.

I would like to recommend that we call this the The Mockingbird Gambit. It seems to me the blogosphere, and now MSNBC, inflate themsleves with the righteous indignation of Atticus Finch as if the 2008 Democratic party is race to be mayor in Monroeville, Alabama.

Gerraldine Ferraro's comments are the regrettable words of single, individual reporter. However, the effort to craft a "pattern" of racism in teh Clinton campaign from specious, apocryphal, and outright untrue accusations is what constitutes, the Mockingbird Gambit.

but isn't it relevant to think about what makes either Obama or Clinton less electable right now? Some people are sexist, so won't vote for Clinton for that reason. Some people or racist so won't vote for Obama for that reason. And, of course, there are many more women voters than AA voters. Is this enough of a factor to change things in the GE? I don't think so but, if I saw data that convinced me that this was a significant factor I would be both very sad, but I'm afraid I'd probably also prefer Clinton (I currently support Obama) since I'd hate for us to lose against McCain based on that.

was that Obama was doing so well in the vote because he was the black MAN running against the white WOMAN.

"I think what America feels about a woman becoming president takes a very secondary place to Obama's campaign - to a kind of campaign that it would be hard for anyone to run against," she said. "For one thing, you have the press, which has been uniquely hard on her. It's been a very sexist media. Some just don't like her. The others have gotten caught up in the Obama campaign.

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," she continued. "And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."

Its a description of a theme that is playing out in the media. Sexism is accepted, and any implication of sexism is ridiculed, but any racism, implied, inferred, or imagined, is roundly condemned. Therefore, any criticism of Obama on substance must be muted lest it be construed as racist. Any and all criticisms of Clinton are allowed, endorsed and echoed. THAT is why Obama is "lucky" in this primary election, as Ferraro was trying to point out. What a lot of Obama supporters don't realize is that his luck will run out in the general because he won't be running against the white woman then. He'll be running against the status quo white MALE.

But I didn't get the sense that she said what you claim she said. She was saying he is in the position he is now because of his race, and she added she had no illusions that if she was not a woman she would not have gotten selected as VP. I believe she also said that Sen Clinton has some of her support because she is a woman.

So I am not sure how you interpret what she says your way. I don't think it was a wise move for her to say it, but she also did say no one can talk about race without being accused of being racist, which has a lot of truth to it. And I personally believe Obama campaign is playing with that issue as she implied.

She didn't say "only reason he..." She pointed out something she believed to be part of his success. And as I said she also pointed out the same about herself and Hillary. I think there is a huge difference between reducing a persons accomplishments to one factor, and pointing out A FACTOR in someones overall accomplishment. She never said or implied Sen Obama was not accomplished, capable, or a serious candidate.

I think we all need to stop treating everyone and what they say as sound-bites or cut-out caricatures. It seems we (collectively) have lost all ability to see shades, understand complex discussions, and just jump at whatever little thing someone says.

Which is also the same issue I have when people imply the Clintons are somehow racist because of one or two statements, rather than a lifetime of actions.

is if people like you allow themselves to be persuaded by those kinds of racist and base arguments you mentioned. The movement his campaign has put together is plenty strong enough to beat McCain, but we really can't afford to have supporters like you start to question things.

Of course, racism still exists in America, and there are people who would never vote for a black man. But should we allow those people a default victory by not challenging those of us who would to step and say, "no more." We will not allow you to diminish us anymore; we will not allow your cynicism to determine our path any more. We need you stand with us in saying this.

Sen. Clinton not only faces the inherent problem of a lot of people not believing in voting for a female president; she has the added onus of being married to the GOP's public enemy #1. The name Clinton alone will motivate a large portion of the base, a base that as of now McCain is having trouble convincing. Going with her is not only cynical in the scenario you described; it's far from a safer bet.

I encourage you to stick to your convictions. Vote your heart, and don't let people convince you that we cannot elect Obama.

supporters don't exactly take all the potential problems she has seriously, but yet they are more than happy to put forth these thin arguments against Obama. Is that equally ironic to you?

Further, I didn't tell him to ignore anything. I told him how the things he noted he worried about become successful.

What did I say that was non-proven about Clinton in that comment? Is she not married to Bill Clinton? Is Bill Clinton not despised by the RNC? Is she not a woman? Do women not face similar obstacles to blacks in terms of discrimination?

In fact, Marvin, I think what you don't like is that I am so good at presenting a valid argument for my candidate. Not just you, but a lot of the Clinton camp here. It bugs you to have someone effective in the Obama camp.

First, I have to say I highly respect anyone who is good at presenting valid and balanced arguments. And honestly it would in no way bug me to have an effective Obama supporter. That is, however, not the same as just saying that you are effective Obama supporter.

Listen, if a Hillary supporter said something so blatantly head spinning as you did I would call them out too. Really. Honestly.

I may be wrong, I'll let others chime in, but non of us hate strong arguments.

To respond: it is true that Hillary is married to Bill. I don't know if Bill is despised by the RNC, I assume he is. Yes she is a woman. I do not know if woman face similar obstacles to people of color, I am neither. I would guess they face different but parallel obstacles.

You go from facts to this conclusion: "Going with her is not only cynical in the scenario you described; it's far from a safer bet."

This, my friend, is an opinion, not an argument. Present numbers showing how she is doing worse, and how people are rejecting her because of these. Like for example isn't it interesting that despite your opinion as of today both candidates are doing equally well against McCain?

sticking to our convictions and voting with our heads rather that our hearts. Isn't that what we're supposed to do? In my heart I think it'd be awesome to have a black president. But my head says that THIS black candidate isn't prepared to do the job. I'm not going to let my heart play identity politics with me.

ps I read this blog all the time but very rarely comment (it's been so long that my old screen name was no longer viable). I would like to take a moment to thank all of you, BTD and Jeralyn in particular, for the lessons in US law and politics.

for now I just want to make one comment: the current attempts to tar Hillary as a racist have gone way, way over the top. They're revolting. Back before the South Carolina primary, the Clinton campaign and its surrogates really did seem to be making a few too many racially charged comments for it to be just a coincidence (though even then some of the accusations were bogus), but after South Carolina it pretty much stopped. I can't say whether it stopped for reasons of politics or reasons of principle, but it stopped.

But the accusations of racism haven't. They've just gotten more ridiculous. Last week a commenter at Daily Kos claimed that the Clinton campaign had concocted an ad that deliberately darkened Obama's face (to make him scarier) and changed the image's aspect ratio (to make his nose broader). They hadn't. After a 60 Minutes appearance, Hillary got slammed for supposedly implying the Obama might be a Muslim. As Eric Boehlert points out, this is patently absurd. Then, a couple of days ago, a legion of bloggers started locking onto the inane meme that talk of Obama as Hillary's VP was like asking him to "ride in the back of the bus." Finally, today, Orlando Patterson, in an apparent attempt to make parody obsolete, writes that when he saw Hillary's "3 am" ad, "I couldn't help but think of D. W. Griffith's 'Birth of a Nation,' the racist movie epic that helped revive the Ku Klux Klan, with its portrayal of black men lurking in the bushes around white society." Hell, even I fell for the racism meme a couple of weeks ago, getting suckered into passing along a Drudge slander about Hillary's campaign supposedly circulating a photo of Obama in "Muslim" garb.

Freedom in the Making of Western Culture - Volume One. And I check Amazon at least once a year to see if Volume Two is coming out (first was in 1991). I think I'll stop checking now, he has crossed a line.

...give him a break. He probably takes a lot more time to write and research his books than he does to shoot off a ridiculous Op Ed piece. At least I hope so, and I also hope that in due course he will be embarrassed about it.

This comment was unacceptable, the defense of the comment is unnacceptable, and Geraldine Ferraro should be ashamed of herself. This is the first blatantly racist thing to come out of the campaign. There were questionable things, perhaps tactless things before, but this takes the cake by a long shot. Think about how it would sound the other way around "Clinton is lucky to be where she is today because she is a woman". Unnacceptable.

I think that's a lot of it, it's like when Michael Moore interviewed Chuck Heston in "Bowling for Columbine" and you just felt uncomfortable watching it (since Heston clearly was not sound), otherwise I would really hope there would be some more outcry-- her remarks are dangerously close to the sentiment that Jesse Helms stirred up against Harvey Gant.

I just realized my header might make people think I'm wishing her ill, I'm not, I meant I hope this is the reason people are giving her something of a pass (she has Cancer I believe, though I think its more of the chronic, terminal but over decades variety).

is the problem. Her "distancing" from this remark is no better than McCain's distancing himself from Hagee. I am very concerned that Hillary wants the issue of "black entitlement" percolating in the campaign.

I think Hillary's statement (saying that she disagreed with what Gerry said) was not meant to have it both ways. She is not pandering -- and doesn't need to pander -- to women through Gerry the way McCain is pandering to wingnuts through Hagee.

I think Hillary's response is reflective of the respect she has for Gerry, her place in history, her recent illness. I think that's all it is. Gerry made a mistake in the making the initial comment, and in digging in her heels afterwards. But she's no racist, and for people to be calling for her head is way over the top.

Whether she's paid or not, the Clinton camp had a cow when Power called her a monster. Ferraro just said Obama is nothing if he weren't black, and it's simply "unfortunate."

That says a lot. When Ferraro went further and said she was being cross-discriminated against, she went completely to the wingnut side of the line. Still, it was only "unfortunate."

I understand who Ferraro was to the Democratic Party in 1984, and she deserves any accolades she gets for that contribution. That does not--and cannot--allow her blanket immunity to say probably the most hateful line of this whole campaign. If she is sick and you don't want to pile on, someone needs to go to her and say that she needs to take a long break to focus on her health. If she's in remission and wants to act as a fully-engaged part of the campaign, then she has to be renounced, rejected, or whatever word the Clinton campaign deems strongest. "Unfortunate" is not it.

As an Obama supporter, I was embarrassed for him that people tried to make that picture thing real. I did feel like the "not as far as I know" line was weak on Hillary's part. But Ferraro's comments were clearly much more than "unfortunate."

"I think what America feels about a woman becoming president takes a very secondary place to Obama's campaign - to a kind of campaign that it would be hard for anyone to run against," she said. "For one thing, you have the press, which has been uniquely hard on her. It's been a very sexist media. Some just don't like her. The others have gotten caught up in the Obama campaign.

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," she continued. "And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."

don't we? Based on the results I get when I try to google the Jr. remark, I'd say the rest of the country feels the way I do. Well, the media agrees with me. His comment is barely mentioned outside the blogosphere.

She was on GMA this morning. I've never watched before but she caught my eye. She appeared very hurt. She felt the Obama campaign tried to portray her as racist to go after Clinton. She felt she was being used to label Clinton because they refuse to focus on the issues.

I'm sure other media will pick out which portions of her statements fit their story lines, will just need to wait and see what spin it gets.

(years ago) as saying there was no way she would have gotten the VP nomination if she had been a man.

And I don't exactly know what Clinton is supposed to do here. She cannot fire the woman because Ferraro does not work for the Clinton campaign. She is a supporter. Clinton said she did not agree with her remarks.

Honestly, if folks are so outraged by hints of racism, why isn't Steve King, a real racist who said that if Obama wins the presidency, the terrorists will have won and the Muslims will be dancing in the streets, being discussed?

Imus got canned because his tasteless and racist remarks (1) were directed at young college women who were being mocked for their very achievement of being stellar athletes; (2) his viewers/listeners, who were not exclusively Neanderthal, were offended; (3) several high-ranking NBC executives and news personalities (including Al Roker, I hear) complained vociferously about him. There were potential commercial consequences, so NBC "did the right thing."

Rush delivers exactly what his audience desires. There is no clash between economics and morality when you're talking about Rush's audience. Both executives and listeners are pleased. The condemnation of the libruls only makes these a-holes more self-righteous.

She made some comments that, when filtered through the narrative that the Obama campaign has been cultivating, are objectionable.

But the truth is Ferraro isn't a racist. Of course she isn't. She is frustrated with the way that, in her view, Obama is using this "Hillary is running a racist campaign" narrative. Ironically, she played right into it. She was trying to explain herself with the "racism goes in both directions" comments but it turned into a trainwreck.

Let's use some common sense here and quit calling good democrats racist because it suits your candidates narrative.

I'd be more sympathetic to this point of view if she hadn't said exactly the same thing about the only other major Black canidate in 1988. At this point she looks a lot like those people who complain about "Minorities are getting all of the jobs because of Affirmative Action." If she hadn't said he was lucky to be a black man, or that a white man wouldn't have made it this far (which, is possible, but also ignores the fact that a white man with Obama's talent's would probably have had a different Career path- think Bill Clinton) it comes off as at least ignorant-- I mean there have only been 3 Black Senators in the history of the United States (only 36 Female Senators, still unrepresentative but much less so). This is especially true in light of the canidate she is for-- Hillary, while having a distinguished career would in no way be the Senator from NY (though perhaps still a presidential canidate) if not for her husband (I don't mean this is a sexist way, she carpetbagged, much like RFK did, she very well could be Kennedy's JR Senator for Mass, or perhaps have Obama's seat in Illinois, just not the seat in NY which she barely made the residency requirements for).

She has said and does say the same thing about herself. I'm personally sick of the 'racist' thing. I used to try to figure out if something was racist, context, history etc. Now I just don't want to hear about it anymore. I don't think she is racist.

Does she think it about Hillary (for the record Ferraro was far more a person who did get by on gender than Hillary or Obama do on their minority status, there was literally no other concievable reason for her to be put on the ticket other than as a Hail Mary).

I just said that she says the same thing about herself.... that she would never have been put on the ticket if she weren't a woman. Her words, not mine. I don't think her comments need to be balanced by comments about Clinton. If she wants to have an opinion about Obama, fine. Don't care. I don't care what most of the surrogates have to say. If there is anything with regards to positions, facts, etc. fine. Let's have at it. Also, I don't have the opinion that what she said would have been acceptable on it's own but not when combined with previous statements. I was unaware of her previous comments and don't care about those either.

I think what she was trying to say was that Obama's race is an issue that is a reason for some people's support. It is a historic thing to have a non-white person in his position. Without that racial component, in her view, he would not be as successful in this endeavor. And it's true. I personally know people who really do count his race as a plus. Nothing wrong with that, either.

It is just exceptionally difficult to discuss because of the "gotcha" factor. If you use the wrong words, play down the negatives of racism, or say something stupid, its "gotcha - you are a racist".

but then her second remark, and the fact she said the exact same thing about Jackson in '88 makes this much less a GOTCHA moment, and much more of one where Clinton campaign needs to cut ties with Ferraro. Otherwise, it looks like its tolerated in her camp, even if Hillary herself "does not agree" with Ferraro.

Plus a few people have tossed in swipes at feminism and feminists in particular.

My opinion? It was probably an incredibly bone headed thing to say for anyone with that many years in politics, as well as offensive. It should be obvious that you never reference race voluntarily and if you are asked a question specifically about race, you should have bland, vaguely positive answer ready. ("The voters will decide." "I trust the voters to make the best choices." "I think Obama is a good politician and a worthy opponent." so forth and so on.)

I think that no one would fault Hillary for rebutting Ferraro's remarks and cutting any ties to her. It is also a perfect example to the rest of Hillary's team to stick to the message and leave race and gender out of public statements.

It looks pretty bad that she's not cutting ties given Obama's thrown two similarily postioned people overboard in the last week-- neither of whom had the practice, or polish that one would have thought Ferraro had.

she is the finance manager for the Clinton campaign. Hillary Clinton needs to sever her ties with Ms. Ferrarro NOW and send a clear message that the comments were not just "regrettable" they were blatantly wrong, divisive, inflammatory and completely contrary to what the party is all about.

She made a comment, taken out of a much broader context (in which she said many complimentary things about Obama including that he has run "the best campaign I've ever seen," to some minor newspaper, in a state in which the primary had long been over, totally outside the context of campaigning. She wasn't asked the question as a "Hillary supporter" -- she was asked it in the context of being the first woman on a major party ticket. And she answered within that context.

You may agree with her or not -- that Obama's race, like her gender once did, makes a large contribution to the excitement he engenders.

But, if you are a Democrat, a progressive who cares about race and gender issues, you should be outraged at what the media and the "progressive" blogosphere are doing.

It is time to wake up to the fact that the media is supporting the long time REPUBLICAN ARGUMENT that Democrats are hypocrites and phonies when it comes to issues of race and gender.

And the progressive blogosphere, for the most part, is seconding that contention.

You may think this is to Obama's advantage in the short term -- but it will be to every progressive's, of any race, color, creed or gender, disadvantage in the long term.

This is her entire comment--not the "so what?" which seems to change the tone completely:

"Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says let's address reality and the problems we're facing in this world, you're accused of being racist, so you have to shut up," Ferraro said. "Racism works in two different directions. I really think they're attacking me because I'm white. How's that?"

Seriously. It was a rhetorical device. She purposefully made the statement to beg the obvious question--"How's that?" as in "How does that shoe look on the other foot?" You seem to purposefully misconstrue just about every post on TL. I don't get it. What are you trying to accomplish here?

im tired. tired of this race. I have decided to no longer watch the news, these accusations of racism and sexism and all other -isms is out of control. I think alot of people are growing tired of all the bickering and those who try to make mountains out of molehills. Its no longer about the issues, its about who can throw a harder punch.(hillary?)

that is a little worried when we discuss these race issues that is a little afraid when clicking the "post" button that you might have typed something that might get misconstrued - that you might end up looking like Ferraro even though you didn't mean anything bad?

In that framework, he has been lucky he's black. You have to pull every punch for fear of being labeled racist. I know a lot of Obama supporters think that to be for Hillary, you have to be racist - what other excuse is there for not seeing the irresistability that is Obama?

How to not be seen as racist? Support Obama. He and his campaign have been playing this to the hilt.

Clinton, OTOH, can't claim sexism in the same way, because few people are afraid of appearing sexist, least of all the media.

Ferraro may have bungled the execution, but her sentiments aren't racist. She's just pointing out that fear of being racist benefits Obama.

posters minds here. It does enormous good to see what a caring intelligent person will post. It is also heartwarming that Eric and another poster here today continues in the same vein as Capt Howdy did the other night trying to get a particular poster to stop being disingenuous, repeating the same meme over and over again to the point that all other discussion was stopped. That is the part that bothers me - the "disingenuous" prevents others from discussing other interesting current topics. It certainly does not make one more amenable to accept the victimhood of their subject. IMHO

if he is the nominee? I don't think he can/will offer Hillary the VP sopt. He has hurt himself with his statement that he will get all her voters. Could he allow the convention to adopt Hillary's and Edwards health care plan for the party platform? Maybe he'll take someone close to the Clinton camp for VP (Clark?) (though he would still be hurting with hispanics and women).

It still depends on the source of the statements. There have been several AA persons on teevee stating whites are voting for him because he's black. One woman on CNN was quite blatant about white guilt. I was suprised when she said it, but it will never be the subject of an entire show.

This whole campaign cycle is getting turned in to a series of circular themes. We don't seem to be able to break through.

was back when Don Imus was being scrutinized for racist comments he made on his show. I remember that Obama suggested Imus be fired for what he said. Hillary did not. I remember thinking that Obama's use of how he'd deal with race was the beginning of his downfall for me. If he hadn't of suggested that Imus be fired, but instead suggest a more neutral road, like an apology is enough, or temporary suspension. But firing? He jumped on board with sharpton and jackson. That changed my opinion of him early on. It's not the only reason I don't support him but it was the first.

And yet Powers should be fired for calling someone a monster(the answer to both of these is yes)? Frankly calling someone a "nappy headed ho" is WAY worse. At least, I think so. Yes he should've been fired. Freedom of speech and all that but that doesn't mean you deserve to be PAID FOR IT.

Please join us as NYCLA presents the Edith I. Spivack Award to Geraldine A. Ferraro on Monday, March 17 at a reception at the NYCLA Home of Law, 14 Vesey Street, at 6:00 PM. As part of NYCLA's celebration of Women's History Month, Ms. Ferraro will discuss the timely topic of "Women in Politics." Hon. Carolyn B. Maloney, U.S. Congresswoman, will present the award to Ms. Ferraro. The award is named for Edith I. Spivack, a longtime NYCLA member and first chair of the Association's Women's Rights Committee, which became highly regarded for its advocacy of equal rights under the law for women under her leadership.

Ms. Ferraro, an attorney, Democratic politician, former member of the U.S. House of Representatives and businesswoman, is best known as the first and only woman to date to represent a major U.S. political party as a candidate for Vice President (in the 1984 election).

Ms. Spivack (1910-2005) was one of the first women admitted to Columbia Law School (class of 1932). She worked at the New York City Department of Law for 70 years, retiring in December 2004. Ms. Spivack is remembered for her service as mentor, role model and inspiration to many women lawyers.

Living in Penna, I have been having fun lately polling some friends. This is my 3rd update on this. We are in NE Penna in the county, Wayne, next to Lackawanna, Scranton. This poll in Philly would probably be different I am sure. But the reason that Hell froze over is that the very GOP owner of our company is voting for Hillary in the GE. I heard her talking to her cousin giggling about what her Grandfather would say. And what is her Father going to say. Probably disown her. And she is in her 40's.

Last time I reported, I was up to 12 people who WILL actually vote. This time, 23 in only a few days. 3 went to the Hillary rally, half are going to the St Patricks Day Parade in Scranton because she will be in it. People are starting to talk about it and raising their hands to their choice. Here are my totals.

First drowned out, now drummed out. The wingnuts are spinning with jubilation over it.

Yesterday, CentCom commander Adm. William Fallon submitted his resignation on the heels of an Esquire article reporting that he has been "brazenly challenging" President Bush's Middle East policy. Fallon opposed the "surge" in Iraq and has consistently battled the Bush administration to avoid a confrontation with Iran, calling officials' war-mongering "not helpful."

The Bush Administration apparently does not want a military study that found no direct connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda to get any attention. This morning, the Pentagon cancelled plans to send out a press release announcing the report's release and will no longer make the report available online.

[snip]

The report is based on the analysis of some 600,000 official Iraqi documents seized by US forces after the invasion. It is also based on thousands of hours of interrogations of former top officials in Saddam's government who are now in U.S. custody.

Others have reached the same conclusion, but no previous study has had access to so much information. Further, this is the first official acknowledgement from the U.S. military that there is no evidence Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda.

...and most of their supporters are, including some African American supporters who have been raked over the coals by the gotcha media, and the Democrats who vote for them are, then how does anyone expect Obama to win the General Election? Is the Obama campaign offering the politics of hope or the politics of paranoia?

I mean, the entire focus of his campaign, and most of the energy of his supporters, appears to now have devolved into asserting that a vast number of Democrats -- including Democrats with 40-50 years of Civil Rights activism behind them -- are racist and/or willing to "do or say" anything to exploit the racism of other Democrats in order to defeat an African American presidential candidate.

I have supported a lot of African American Democrats for local state and national office over the years. I cast my first presidential vote for Shirley Chilsom in the California primary in '72. I supported Ron Dellums when I lived in his district in the early '70s. I voted for Jesse Jackson in '88. I supported Norm Rice in his successful bid for Mayor of Seattle and his unsuccessful bid for the Democratic nomination for Governor in '96. I volunteered and contributed to Ron Sims campaigns for City Council, King County Executive, and his race for the Democratic nomination for Governor (against a white woman). Many of those campaigns were won, some were lost -- none involved this kind of ugliness aimed at the Democratic party by those who call themselves "progressive" or "liberal."

I don't understand how anyone can think this will have anything other than bad consequences.

is pretty good, I have to say. After all, dude was in Heaven just a few weeks ago. snarky!

If I had time, I'd like to research it, but I'd be willing to bet that in this race, Hillary has only gone down. What I mean is, against Obama her name alone got her like a 55-35 split going in almost everywhere. She only maintained that 55 in a very few places like NY, AR (where she got her highest margin I think), OK (we could conjecture how she did it, but just give her credit), RI, and MA (where she clearly beat him worse than I expected).

Now, in NY she was hometown, same in AR. MA I know she got extreme support from white women. They were 50% of the vote, and she got 65%. The Catholic vote was similar (only 45% of turnout).RI had similar white female turnout, and Clinton got 70%.

Okay, so if we take those results, we could argue that Clinton's most clear victories (defined as getting 55% of the vote) only came where she had large white female or senior citizen turnout or had homecourt advantage. Everywhere else, win or lose, Clinton was not able to significantly distance herself from Obama. So, as voters heard the two pitches, he picked up everybody who was not a white woman or a senior citizen.

Okay, I twisted her #s, though I would say with little effort, to show how her support is not as strong as it seems.

With the basic premise that "blowing the other side" away matters in the GE. In the democratic primary it is a plus, obviously, as delegates are proportional. And hats off to Sen Obamas campaign for figuring this out better and capitalizing.

The GE is a ONE DAY PRIMARY WITH WINNER TAKES ALL. You can win by any number of points. Sen Obamas big wins are far outweighed by the electoral votes of the states he lost (I know, I know, its not directly relevant, but I am following your own logic using the primary results). So winning say Wyoming by 90% really isn't as useful as say, winning CA by 0.01%.

Sen Obama has had a fantastic rise in support. But he has stalled out. And the little bit of negative coverage stopped him from clinching the nomination. On the other hand Hillary Clinton's support has not wavered one bit, despite an unbalanced MSM, a huge money deficit, and being declared dead three times. I'd say her support is infinitely stronger than his. But only time will bear this out.

Sen. Clinton has been declared dead 3 times b/c her support did in fact wain. She went from the prohibitive favorite to third in IA. Her camp saw her on the ropes, rallied, and she won NH. She got blown out in SC, then her group showed up big in Florida. In MI, I would argue that failing to get 60% was a bad sign, considering Obama and Edwards were not on the ticket. I know there was an "uncommitted" campaign or whatever, but still to be the only big name on there she should have done better.

She won NV just barely after having all kinds of controversy, and then lost the delegate battle.

Feb. 5 came, and Sen. Obama won more states than she did, more delegates, etc. Once again, she was on the ropes. They had already written off the rest of February. Then she made a last minute pitch for WI, but went from 48% right before (I do remember she led polls that weekend), to only getting 41%. Once again, she is on her way out.

Then comes TX. She manages to win with 51%, just enough to keep her in the race.

So, rather than constant support, I would say that Sen. Clinton has been thrown several lifelines. Her tempting of fate is bound to catch up to her.

The fact (well, my fact/opinion) is that Sen. Clinton never imagined having to work after Super Tuesday. Because of that, Obama was able to hustle and get a bunch of support from people Sen. Clinton was going to ignore (as she largely did during Feb.). Now, she's having to fight to stay alive, but even then her best hope is to somehow win the popular vote and convince SDs she's a better nominee. I don't see it happeneing, but if she does, she'll forever be the comeback kid.

Well done, Marvin. I think we're both boning up on our talking points rather well.